A CV is an argument, not a record
Most CVs fail structurally rather than grammatically. They list what happened instead of making a case for what you can do next, and leave the reader — who has minutes, not hours — to work it out alone.
Our review starts with the shape of the document: which format puts your strongest evidence where a reader looks first, whether the summary is doing any work, and whether each recent role states an outcome or just restates a job description.
What we look at
- Format choice: reverse-chronological, skills-led or hybrid
- Whether the top third of page one earns its space
- Duty-listing rewritten as situation, action, result
- Figures you could actually defend in an interview
- How it survives being pasted as plain text
One master copy, many versions
Keep one long document with everything in it, then cut down per application. Rewriting from scratch each time is how dates and job titles drift apart — and an inconsistency between your CV and your public profile is exactly what gets noticed.
The builder keeps that master copy for you and lets you export a tailored version in a couple of minutes. We do not write the document for you: every claim on the page is a possible interview question, so it has to be something you can expand on.
No promises about outcomes
We do not claim that any of this will get you hired. Hiring depends on the market, the role, the other applicants and timing — none of which we can see. What we can do is make sure your documents are not the reason you were passed over.